Anglicans to Rome - Thread 2

[SyroMalankara]

Hi Mike and Matt,
Hope all is well, peace be with you.

I think the issue is of “formal heretics” is a main one. Anglicans and most others are not formal heretics unless they personally left the Catholic Church. Those TAC, Orthodox, and others who were born and brought up in their beliefs are not formal heretics.

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

Matt:

As “Irenicist” stated in a previous post, many of those details of how the TAC wiould be received would be done in the same fashion as the Eastern Catholics Churches were received.

The Catholic Church sees the Anglicans as a Protestant ecclesial community and not a church in the proper sense. The Catholic Church’s official position is that the Anglicans have not preserved apostolic succession and celebrate a Eucharist that is invalid. Because the Anglican Eucharist is invalid, the Anglicans do not belong to a church. Irenicist is comparing apples to oranges.

If the Pope really is infallible in these areas, and whether or not certain people should be offered the Eucharish in Catholic Churches really is a matter of Faith, Doctrine and Morals, and he’s already decided to so in these cases, then shouldn’t the Pope also have the right and AUTHORITY to decide this in the case of members of the TAC as well?

Even Protestants are allowed to receive communion under very limited circumstances."Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . "

Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.

… The circumstances in which Protestants are permitted to receive Communion are more limited, though it is still possible for them to do so under certain specifically defined circumstances.

Canon law explains the parameters: “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 § 4).

Catholic Answers: Who Can Receive Communion?
The entire TAC is hardly under the danger of death, and there is no grave necessity that would justify giving the Eucharist to a Protestant community.

 

[mtr01]

Matt16_18:

There are some matters concerning the reception of the Eucharist (e.g. the age at which one can receive) that are disciplinary. Other matters are of the faith, and not matters of discipline. The Pope has no authority to offer the Eucharist to adults that know what the Catholic Church infallibly teaches and who willfully reject that those teachings. That formal heretics cannot receive the Eucharist is a matter of faith, not discipline.

Francis Cardinal Arinze addressed this issue in his recent interview on EWTN:

"Our celebration of the Holy Eucharist presumes unity of faith. You have the full Catholic faith and the full Catholic Communion. That means you are in union with the Pope and the local bishop, whose names are mentioned in the Mass. So if all these people want to receive Holy Communion at our Mass, very good. I’ll tell you the conditions, they will be received into the Catholic Church, they will go to Confession as any other Catholic, and then if they believe everything the Catholic Church believes, that means they are Catholics. Then they can receive Communion.

"There are a very few exceptions which Canon Law allows…like that this person for one month or two months will not see a pastor of his church at all, that the person believes everything the Catholic Church believes on the Holy Eucharist…if you believe all that, why dont you join us?..and then that we will admit the person, so it’s very rare.

“An individual priest has no authority whatsoever, not even a Cardinal or Bishop, to say to other Christians who are not Catholics, “come along, receive Our Lord.” The Holy Eucharist is not our private gift which we give to those who are our friends. Priests and Bishops are only servants of the mystery, not masters. Indeed, not even every Catholic is qualified to receive Holy Eucharist, not to talk of those who are not Catholic. Because Catholic teaching is if you are in mortal sin, then you must go to a priest and go to confession first, and accept you are a sinner…otherwise no. How much more a person who is not even a Catholic? Are you really serious?”

You can listen to the audio of the interview here.

 

[Matt16_18]

mtr01:

"Our celebration of the Holy Eucharist presumes unity of faith. …

An individual priest has no authority whatsoever, not even a Cardinal or Bishop, to say to other Christians who are not Catholics, “come along, receive Our Lord.”

Thanks for posting this.

 

[Irenicist]

mtr01:

Francis Cardinal Arinze addressed this issue in his recent interview on EWTN:

(snip)

"There are a very few exceptions which Canon Law allows…like that this person for one month or two months will not see a pastor of his church at all, that the person believes everything the Catholic Church believes on the Holy Eucharist…

"An individual priest has no authority whatsoever, not even a Cardinal or Bishop, to say to other Christians who are not Catholics, “come along, receive Our Lord.” The Holy Eucharist is not our private gift which we give to those who are our friends. "

I certainly don’t wish to offend anyone in saying this, but isn’t this the kind of argument we tend to accuse Protestants of offering? In attempting to prove a point, there is little purpose in quoting a passage that refers to something else entirely. No one in this thread has ever suggesting that a priest, bishop or cardinal has the authority to bend canon law in order to grant communion to an otherwise ineligible subject who has no desire or intention to enter the Church.

The point in contention is whether the Pope (not a priest, bishop or cardinal) has the authority to relax the rules controlling access to communion for those who wish to enter the Church (i.e. not for obstinate heretics or schismatics who simply cannot find a priest of their own denomination).

Lots of passages have been quoted demonstrating that members of the TAC (as currently constituted) do not have access to communion. No one is arguing otherwise. So endlessly repeating this point and quoting further documentation in its support is just tiresome.

The issues Trad Ang are concerned about are twofold and quite different. Let me lay it out as clearly as I can:

1. If the clergy of the TAC makes a clear profession of the full Catholic faith;

…If the clergy of the TAC agrees to fully recognize the authority of the Pope to govern the Church;

…If the clergy of the TAC is then reordained (conditionally or otherwise);

…If the clergy of the TAC agrees to modify all its rubrics and liturgy so as to purge it of any heretical content;

…If the clergy of the TAC agrees to teach the full Catholic faith to its flock;

…can the Holy Father recognize the clergy of the TAC as constituting that of an autonomous Church following its own (“Anglican”) rite?

The answer, I would submit is, yes. Whether the TAC would have been a valid Church before all these conditions would have been fulfilled would be moot. Whether the TAC had drawn its origin from a Protestant denomination would also be moot, as it would cease to be Protestant once all these conditions had been fulfilled.

The far more substantive point remaining is

1. Could the Holy Father allow the now Catholic clergy of the former TAC (now hypothetically styled the “Anglican Catholic Church”) continue to administer a now valid eucharist to those members of its flock, whether permanently or in the interim;

…If these members accept the necessity and reality of reunion with the Catholic Church;

…If these members agree to participate in good faith in the programme of instruction and liturgical revision to be undertaken by the former TAC clergy;

…Yet maintain private and possibly temporary reservations concerning some articles of faith in which they have yet to be fully instructed?

These are clear questions. Denying that this or that condition applies now, or is likely to apply in future, would be beside the point as we are only dealing with a hypothetical situation. Changing the hypothesis simply so as to offer a negative would be a violation of the rules of fair discussion.

So assuming all the conditions for questions and 1 and 2 were met, would the answer to question 2 be yes? If not, why not, given the current exceptions provided for in Canon law that allow repentant (but unshriven) sinners, schismatics and heretics to commune in restricted circumstances? If yes, would it be expedient for the Holy Father to grant such communion in the expectation that all the communicants would in time overcome their scruples and fully share in the Catholic faith?

Irenicist

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
Michael_Thoma:

Hi Mike and Matt,

Hope all is well, peace be with you.**

---

**## Was that addressed to Hesychios & Matt, or to Trad Ang & Matt, or to both & Matt, or…? ## **

---

**I think the issue is of “formal heretics” is a main one. Anglicans and most others are not formal heretics unless they personally left the Catholic Church. **

---

## That would definitely include Abp. Hepworth, then. Lucky old him - from apostate Catholic, to negotiator with the Pope. That’s not all that usual an evolution. ##

---

**

Those TAC, Orthodox, and others who were born and brought up in their beliefs are not formal heretics.

**

 

[Matt16_18]

Irenicist:

…can the Holy Father recognize the clergy of the TAC as constituting that of an autonomous Church following its own (“Anglican”) rite?

What do you mean by an “autonomous” church? I think that you may be confusing an Orthodox concept of church with the Catholic conception of church.

Anglicanism came into being when a part of the Latin Rite Church went into schism. Eventually, the Anglicans lost their apostolic succession, and they became just one more Protestant denomination among thousands of other Protestant denominations. Could Rome allow a group of Protestants that broke away from the Latin Rite to repent of heresy and reunite with the Catholic Church? Yes, of course. Could Rome allow within the Latin Rite the celebration of a liturgy that was once in use by the Latin Rite? Of course. Will Rome create a whole new rite just for a group of Protestants that were once a part of the Latin Rite? I doubt it.

Would it be sufficient for the clergy of a Protestant denomination to repent of heresy in order for the rest of the Protestant denomination to be received into the Catholic Church? I don’t see how that is possible. Anglicanism suffers the fault of all the other Protestant denominations – the members of these Protestant sects have typically received only one of the Sacraments of Initiation that is valid – the Sacrament of Baptism. Because of defect found within Anglicanism, ALL the members of the TAC would have to make a profession of faith and receive all three of the Sacraments of Initiation. There is no other way to have full communion with the Catholic Church.

If a branch of the Lutheran or Methodist sects decided that they wanted to become Catholics again, they would have to go through the same process that the Anglicans need to undergo.

You keep trying to compare the invalid sacraments of Anglican Protestants to the valid, but illicit, sacraments found in the sister churches of the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. This is why your arguments break down.

Could the Holy Father allow the now Catholic clergy of the former TAC to administer a … valid eucharist to those members of its flock, [that] maintain private reservations concerning some articles of faith in which they have yet to be fully instructed?

No. The Catholic Church does not give the Eucharist to Anglican candidates that are in an existing RCIA program. How is the situation that exists today regarding Anglicans that are in an RCIA program and waiting to receive the Sacraments of Initiation any different than these theoretical potential converts from Anglicanism? There is no difference.

Anglicans that are in an RCIA program must make a profession of the faith before they can receive the Sacraments of Initiation. To receive the Sacraments of Confirmation and the Eucharist, Anglican candidates cannot have ANY mental reservations about accepting EVERY doctrine of the Catholic Church before they make their profession of faith. You are putting the cart before the horse in thinking that adults that do not wholeheartedly accept the teachings of the Catholic Church can partake of the Eucharist. That just isn’t possible.

 

[Matt16_18]

I think the issue is of “formal heretics” is a main one.

Rome won’t bother trying to determine if individual Anglicans are merely material heretics that are not culpable for the sin of heresy. The problem that Rome must deal with is the fact that Anglicans are taught heresy as members of the Anglican communion. This defective instruction in the faith can only be overcome by Anglicans receiving proper catechesis. Whether the Anglicans receive this instruction from Anglican converts to the Catholic faith or from cradle Catholics is irrelevant. Anglicans need instruction in the teachings that were received by the Councils of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II, since Anglicans went into schism with the Catholic Church before these Ecumenical Councils were held.

As I see it, the two main stumbling blocks to reunion of the TAC with the Catholic Church are:1) the fact that the Anglicans of the TAC are taught heretical doctrine

1. the invalidity of the Anglican sacramentsBoth of these stumbling blocks can be overcome by the Anglicans making a profession of faith, and receiving valid Sacraments of Initiation. Matters regarding the Liturgy that can be used within the Latin Rite are relatively minor matters regarding changeable church discipline.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

Irenicist:

I certainly don’t wish to offend anyone in saying this, but isn’t this the kind of argument we tend to accuse Protestants of offering? In attempting to prove a point, there is little purpose in quoting a passage that refers to something else entirely. No one in this thread has ever suggesting that a priest, bishop or cardinal has the authority to bend canon law in order to grant communion to an otherwise ineligible subject who has no desire or intention to enter the Church.

**The point in contention is whether the Pope (not a priest, bishop or cardinal) has the authority to relax the rules controlling access to communion for those who wish to enter the Church (i.e. not for obstinate heretics or schismatics who simply cannot find a priest of their own denomination). **

Lots of passages have been quoted demonstrating that members of the TAC (as currently constituted) do not have access to communion. No one is arguing otherwise. So endlessly repeating this point and quoting further documentation in its support is just tiresome.

The issues Trad Ang are concerned about are twofold and quite different. Let me lay it out as clearly as I can:

1. If the clergy of the TAC makes a clear profession of the full Catholic faith;

…If the clergy of the TAC agrees to fully recognize the authority of the Pope to govern the Church;

…If the clergy of the TAC is then reordained (conditionally or otherwise);

…If the clergy of the TAC agrees to modify all its rubrics and liturgy so as to purge it of any heretical content;

…If the clergy of the TAC agrees to teach the full Catholic faith to its flock;

…can the Holy Father recognize the clergy of the TAC as constituting that of an autonomous Church following its own (“Anglican”) rite?

The answer, I would submit is, yes. Whether the TAC would have been a valid Church before all these conditions would have been fulfilled would be moot. Whether the TAC had drawn its origin from a Protestant denomination would also be moot, as it would cease to be Protestant once all these conditions had been fulfilled.

The far more substantive point remaining is

2. Could the Holy Father allow the now Catholic clergy of the former TAC (now hypothetically styled the “Anglican Catholic Church”) continue to administer a now valid eucharist to those members of its flock, whether permanently or in the interim;

…If these members accept the necessity and reality of reunion with the Catholic Church;

…If these members agree to participate in good faith in the programme of instruction and liturgical revision to be undertaken by the former TAC clergy;

…Yet maintain private and possibly temporary reservations concerning some articles of faith in which they have yet to be fully instructed?**

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

**## That last point is where things would come unstuck - it would be tantamount to giving communion to non-Catholics. **

**It is monstrous to suggest that people who are not Catholics, and who, in the nature of the case, are free to decide not to be received into the CC, should have access to the CC’s sacraments on a regular basis. It’s a form of cheating; they would be getting all the benefits of Catholicism, while having the option of backing out and staying Anglican in some form, or becoming something else “non-RC”. **
**Grown-up people do not behave in this fashion. **

**Some of us, had to wait - whether we liked it or not: why should others get special treatment ? Why should the exceptional practice of the CC be made into a rule for their benefit ? If it were, it would be very difficult to explain to real Catholics (and I think the term is justified in this context) why there is one rule for them, and another for aspiring converts who may not even be converts at the end of the end. The discipline of the of the Church would be reduced to an incoherent mess - all because one group of aspiring converts had received special treatment. **

That is the question that has been dodged & ignored and shirked throughout this thread. The TAC may not want to face it - that does not mean it will go away. ##

**

These are clear questions. Denying that this or that condition applies now, or is likely to apply in future, would be beside the point as we are only dealing with a hypothetical situation. Changing the hypothesis simply so as to offer a negative would be a violation of the rules of fair discussion.

So assuming all the conditions for questions and 1 and 2 were met, would the answer to question 2 be yes? If not, why not, given the current exceptions provided for in Canon law that allow repentant (but unshriven) sinners, schismatics and heretics to commune in restricted circumstances?**

## There would not be any emergency or grave pastoral need arising from the absence of a non-Catholic pastor. That is the condition for non-Catholic reception. Why should impatience be pandered to ? If members of the TAC are sincere in wanting to be received, they should have the patience to go through the same discipline as everyone else. ##

**

If yes, would it be expedient for the Holy Father to grant such communion in the expectation that all the communicants would in time overcome their scruples and fully share in the Catholic faith?

Irenicist**

**## God forbid. Why should this be granted them, when it is not granted to others ? **

That was a good post of yours BTW - with good questions; I hope that answers them ##

 

[mtr01]

Irenicist:

I certainly don’t wish to offend anyone in saying this, but isn’t this the kind of argument we tend to accuse Protestants of offering? In attempting to prove a point, there is little purpose in quoting a passage that refers to something else entirely. No one in this thread has ever suggesting that a priest, bishop or cardinal has the authority to bend canon law in order to grant communion to an otherwise ineligible subject who has no desire or intention to enter the Church.

Irenicist

I think you missed the point of the quote. Cardinal Arinze was stating (in the part you snipped) that in order to receive communion (except in very rare circumstances) one must profess the faith of the Catholic Church. Now, if members of the TAC do not make that profession (in regards to “troublesome” dogmas), then they are “Christians who are not Catholics”.

If not all Catholics are eligible to receive communion, why should a member of the TAC be able to, if he does not profess certain dogmas of the Church?

 

[rjs1]

I must admit that I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the approach that some of the Traditional Anglicans have to their reception into the Catholic Church. They keep persisting with the line that they do not have to accept all of the Church’s doctrines yet, supposedly on a temporary basis, may still be able to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. I do not believe, in spite of their frequent protestations to the contrary, that Rome is seriously considering such an option.
I keep repeating, over and over, that the Anglican Use Catholics have been through the whole issue of what is required for reception into the Catholic Church. They have BEEN RECEIVED. This is not theory, it is fact. Why then won’t the Traditional Anglicans take note of what they did?
This ridiculous persistence about being received, while not accepting some doctrines of the Church, is nonsense. To argue that it is only an interim step does not make it any less nonsense.
I suspect that there is an element of lack of humility in demanding, or even expecting, that the Church would receive them on the terms of less than total acceptance of the doctrines of the Church. The same would apply to regular reception of Holy Communion. Quoting exceptional cases proves nothing.
By all means they should try to argue for their liturgy, as the Anglican Use Catholics did. They should try to be received as a rite. But - they must, in humility, accept the FULL DOCTRINAL teachings of the Catholic Church. This continuous talk about communion on any other basis is getting rather tiresome.

 

[Irenicist]

Matt16_18:

What do you mean by an “autonomous” church? I think that you may be confusing an Orthodox concept of church with the Catholic conception of church.

“Autonomous” might not have been the best word. I meant like the Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean Churches.

Matt16_18:

Will Rome create a whole new rite just for a group of Protestants that were once a part of the Latin Rite? I doubt it.

Well, perhaps we shall see in time. I don’t understand why you think this would be so unlikely, however. The Italo-Albanian, Russian, Ukranian, Bulgarian, Roumanian, etc. rites were all derived from the Byzantine, and Rome “created” them “as whole new rites” when they rejoined the Church.

Matt16_18:

Because of defect found within Anglicanism, ALL the members of the TAC would have to make a profession of faith and receive all three of the Sacraments of Initiation. There is no other way to have full communion with the Catholic Church.

Ok, this seems to be a more substantive argument. Former TAC members would certainly have to be reconfirmed (or validly confirmed for the first time). In this they would be different from the members of the Eastern Churches who reunited with Rome. Confirmation is indeed a prerequisite for communion. Nevertheless, there is no legal or even customary requirement for a statement of faith on the part of those who are to be confirmed, though this might be the practice for individual converts. The sacrament would still be valid even if the subject was not in full accord with the Catholic faith so long as he had been baptised, was willing to be confirmed, and the sacrament was performed by a bishop through the laying of hands and anointment with holy chrism.

Matt16_18:

You keep trying to compare the invalid sacraments of Anglican Protestants to the valid, but illicit, sacraments found in the sister churches of the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. This is why your arguments break down.

Actually, I don’t recall ever trying to make this comparison, let alone “keep trying”. Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster. I have never addressed the issue on this board. But now that you have brought this up, there are two reasons for thinking that TAC orders and sacraments might be valid (n.b. I am not claiming they are). First, TAC bishops may be able to trace valid consecrations through schismatic bishops. Second, Anglican orders were declared invalid because of a fundamental defect in the Anglican understanding of the nature of ordination. If TAC ordinands and ordinaries had affirmed a Catholic understanding of the sacrament at the time it was performed (n.b. I am not claiming they did), then it might have been valid in their specific cases (assuming the performing ordinaries were in a valid line of Apostolic Succession).

Matt16_18:

No. The Catholic Church does not give the Eucharist to Anglican candidates that are in an existing RCIA program. How is the situation that exists today regarding Anglicans that are in an RCIA program and waiting to receive the Sacraments of Initiation any different than these theoretical potential converts from Anglicanism? There is no difference.

There are many differences. The RCIA programme is not a sacrament. There is no legal requirement for anyone to go through one to be admitted into the Church. It is merely an administrative and instructional tool applied to individual converts from whatever denomination whether Protestant, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox. I don’t see what bearing participation or non-participation in an RCIA programme would have with respect to the admission of whole denominations.

Matt16_18:

You are putting the cart before the horse in thinking that adults that do not wholeheartedly accept the teachings of the Catholic Church can partake of the Eucharist. That just isn’t possible.

If it “just isn’t possible,” how can there be provision for the administration of the eucharist to those outside the Church even if only on an “extraordinary” basis.

Again, this is not to say that TAC members will or should be admitted to communion as a block without complete and individual professions of faith. This would depend on a lot of factors including a positive reevalution of the validity of their orders and sacraments, convincing and unqualified professions on the part of their clergy, cessation of comunion with other Anglican bodies, and the judgement of the Holy Father that this step would further the edification of the Church. But to flat out claim that it “just isn’t possible”, that “it’s beyond the Pope’s authority”, etc. to admit anyone to communion without a full profession of the Catholic faith, when canon law explicitly states otherwise, is hardly convincing.

As we don’t seem to be getting anywhere on our own, perhaps we should agree on a question to submit to the site’s apologists and see what they say.

Irenicist

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Mtr01, The fact is that the Eucharist is offered to Eastern Orthodox Christians who have far deeper disputes with the Catholic Church over the meaning of the Catholic Faith than the members of the TAC who are applying for Communion with Rome could ever have.

That offer is by virtue of an Ecumenical Council, the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.

mtr01:

I think you missed the point of the quote. Cardinal Arinze was stating (in the part you snipped) that in order to receive communion (except in very rare circumstances) one must profess the faith of the Catholic Church. Now, if members of the TAC do not make that profession (in regards to “troublesome” dogmas), then they are “Christians who are not Catholics”.

The Ordianry Magisterium of the Church has offered limited Communion to members of other bodies, including the Polish National Catholic Church, in spite of the fact the PNCC does not accept Papal Infallability or the Marion Doctrines arrising from PI or the teachings of the Church relating to Artificial Contraception.

The precedent is there, and is already enshrined in Canon Law in the four-Pronged test I enumerated earlier.

Irenicist and others have stated that Whom the Church invites to receive Communion is a matter of Discipline, in which case, the Church has every right to decide to invite “Seperated Brethren” to the Eucharistic Table so long as those “Seperated Brethren” can discern the Lord’s Body and Blood.

Of this is not so, and it’s a matter Faith, Doctrine and Morals, then the Pope has the Authority to make this decision by virtue of his Petrine Office and the Gift of Infallibility.

I’m shocked that as a Non-Catholic I’m having to tell Catholics to submit to the Pope!

Mtr01, the only Catholics who are Ineligible to Receive Communion are those who are; Catholics who are guilty of an unconfessed Mortal Sin; Guilty of Heresy (Publicly opposing the extradinary and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church on a substantial matter of faith, doctrine and morals); and Catholics who have been excommunicated.

mtr01:

If not all Catholics are eligible to receive communion, why should a member of the TAC be able to, if he does not profess certain dogmas of the Church?

In the first case, all they need to do is go to Confession. In the second case, public recantation of the Heresy and a promise to submit to the Magisterium plus a period of penance will be necessary.And, even in the third case, dispensations can be sought to remove the excommunication.

Here, we are dealing with people who aren’t guilty of anything more than unknowing Heresy. To ascribe more or intentionality, as some have done here, is to go beyond the evidence and what is allowed under the Church’s own Canon Law.

If the Pope believes that authorizing Limited Communion for members of the TAC while the Vatican finalizes the details with our superiors, his Petrine Office gives him the Authority to do that, esp. since the precedents are already in place.

Again, as irenicist has said, the Reception of a Church into the Catholic Church is handled completely differently than that of an individual, or even of a single congregation.

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[Matt16_18]

rjs1:

I keep repeating, over and over, that the Anglican Use Catholics have been through the whole issue of what is required for reception into the Catholic Church. They have BEEN RECEIVED. This is not theory, it is fact. Why then won’t the Traditional Anglicans take note of what they did?

This ridiculous persistence about being received, while not accepting some doctrines of the Church, is nonsense. To argue that it is only an interim step does not make it any less nonsense.

Amen!

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Gottle of Gerr:

Michael, in reference to your posts numbers # 383 and # 384:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=487789&postcount=383

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=487794&postcount=384

The 2nd Vatican Council decided to offer the Eucharist to Eastern Orthodox Christians who found themselves forced to attend Catholic Churches.

As you know, the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches have doctrinal differences that go well beyond anything described or even contemplated between the TAC and the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has LIMITED Intercommunion with the Polish National Catholic Church. It goes beyond situations of extremis and also allows for a member of the PNCC to receive Communion if he or she is unable to do so in a local PNCC parish (e.g., in the case of no local PNCC parish). As we all know, the PNCC denies Papal Infallibility and the Dogmas arrising from the Papal Bulls that relied on PI. The PNCC also allows Artificial Contraception by its members. Naturally, because of the plenitude of Catholic parishes, this is a one way arrangement.

This last precedent would seem to be potentially applicable to relations between the TAC and the Catholic Church, and is within the Authority of the Pope to authorize due to the nature of his Petrine Office.

The Crack, “Grown up people do not behave in this fashion,” is hardly necessary.

It only gives evidence that you have animosity towards the members of the TAC coming from elsewhere, and that, if the issue of reunion were left up to you, you would not pursue it.

Regarding special treatment - That’s for the Pope to decide. I don’t have to answer that question, and I won’t, except to tell you that the reception of a CHURCH invariably involves some form of treatment diferent from that accorded individuals, and that that was the case with each and every single one of the Eastern Catholic Churches. That’s just the way it is.

You can see at least one precedent above for treatment accorded a body of “Seperated Brethren”.

By the Way, I’ve answered your questions for a while now, what is YOUR position regarding PAPAL INFALIBILITY? The Teaching Magisterium of the Church, Ordinary and Extraordinary? The ALL-MALE PRIESTHOOD? And, I’m sure you’ll remember where this one comes from - Do you believe that our Lord Jesus was BODILY Raised from the Dead on the Third Day?

Questions are a two-way street.

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

… the only Catholics who are Ineligible to Receive Communion are those who are; Catholics who are guilty of an unconfessed Mortal Sin; Guilty of Heresy (Publicly opposing the extradinary and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church on a substantial matter of faith, doctrine and morals) …

Where did you get the qualification of “substantial”? Who determines whether heresy is substantial or insubstantial? One big problem that the TAC will have to overcome before they can be received into the Catholic Church is convincing the members of the TAC that practicing artificial contraception is a mortal sin. Are the Anglicans going to be allowed to determine that practicing artificial contraception is an insubstantial matter that they can ignore because they agree with more substantial matters of faith?

The members of the TAC are going to have to accept EVERY infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

• Here, we are dealing with people who aren’t guilty of anything more than unknowing Heresy.*

Only God knows if a person is a material heretic or a formal heretic. The Catholic Church will never make the judgement that all the members of the Anglican denomination are only material heretics. The issue that Rome does have to deal with is the fact that Anglicans are taught heresy. This defective catechesis must be overcome by proper instruction before Anglicans can be received into the Church.

• If the Pope believes that authorizing Limited Communion for members of the TAC while the Vatican finalizes the details with our superiors, his Petrine Office gives him the Authority to do that, esp. since the precedents are already in place.*

There is no such thing as “limited communion”. It is true that Protestants are allowed to receive the Eucharist when “there is a danger of death or there is some other grave and pressing need”. (Code of Cannon Law, 844 § 4). But even then, the Protestants in danger of death can receive only if they “they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed”.

The adult members of the TAC hardly meet the requirement of being in danger of death or in grave or pressing need. And an adult that knows what the Catholic Church teaches and does not accept these teachings cannot be said to be “properly disposed” to receiving the Eucharist.

I don’t know why you and Irenicist persist in trying to develop this section of Canon law into a teaching that the “Church has every right to decide to invite [Protestants] to the Eucharistic Table so long as those [Protestants] can discern the Lord’s Body and Blood.” What you are asking for is nothing less than open communion with Protestants, something that the Catholic Church has never allowed, and never will allow.

 

[Matt16_18]

Traditional Ang:

The Catholic Church has LIMITED Intercommunion with the Polish National Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Sacraments of the PNCC. Under the provisions of the Code of Canon Law Can. 844 §2, Catholics may lawfully receive the Eucharist from a PNCC minister.844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.The PNCC and the RNC have discussed this possibility: “the possibility of Roman Catholics in the military receiving the sacraments from PNCC chaplains … in areas where troops are deployed and Roman Catholics do not have access to their own ministers."

Polish National Catholic-Roman Catholic Dialogue Covers Many Issues
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**
Traditional Ang:

Mtr01, The fact is that the Eucharist is offered to Eastern Orthodox Christians who have far deeper disputes with the Catholic Church over the meaning of the Catholic Faith than the members of the TAC who are applying for Communion with Rome could ever have.

**That offer is by virtue of an Ecumenical Council, the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.
The Ordianry Magisterium of the Church has offered limited Communion to members of other bodies, including the Polish National Catholic Church, in spite of the fact the PNCC does not accept Papal Infallability or the Marion Doctrines arrising from PI or the teachings of the Church relating to Artificial Contraception.

## The PNCC differs from the TAC in that the PNCC is not seeking full communion with Rome; so the PNCC’s adherents are receiving RC sacramental ministrations by way of exception, and extra-ordinarily. Which is not the case with Christian who are in the process of seeking full communion with Rome as those in the TAC are.

**The differences are significant enough to undermine the parallel; so, if there are precedents for the treatment of the TAC, the treatment of the PNCC is not one of them. ## **

**

The precedent is there, and is already enshrined in Canon Law in the four-Pronged test I enumerated earlier.

Irenicist and others have stated that Whom the Church invites to receive Communion is a matter of Discipline, in which case, the Church has every right to decide to invite “Seperated Brethren” to the Eucharistic Table so long as those “Seperated Brethren” can discern the Lord’s Body and Blood.

Of this is not so, and it’s a matter Faith, Doctrine and Morals, then the Pope has the Authority to make this decision by virtue of his Petrine Office and the Gift of Infallibility.**

**## Papal power alone is not sufficient - the pope is not morally free to do any old thing he might like to; as was made clear in the debates at Vatican I. He can do only what is not contrary to the Faith - he can’t abolish the episcopate, teach that lying is virtuous, de-dogmatise PI, or let parrots be admitted to Holy Communion. And it seems pretty likely that he can’t admit Christians to Communion except on certain conditions. **

**Admission to the CC, or to HC, is not governed by positive disciplinary laws alone, but by dogma as well. **

And in any case, if the Pope were to violate the customary discipline of reserving the Eucharist to some, while forbidding it to others, how could the argument from custom against women priests stand up ? If custom is a strong argument in the latter case, it is an equally strong argument in the former case as well. Popes have to be consistent. ##

I’m shocked that as a Non-Catholic I’m having to tell Catholics to submit to the Pope!

Mtr01, the only Catholics who are Ineligible to Receive Communion are those who are; Catholics who are guilty of an unconfessed Mortal Sin; Guilty of Heresy (Publicly opposing the extradinary and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church on a substantial matter of faith, doctrine and morals); and Catholics who have been excommunicated.

In the first case, all they need to do is go to Confession. In the second case, public recantation of the Heresy and a promise to submit to the Magisterium plus a period of penance will be necessary.And, even in the third case, dispensations can be sought to remove the excommunication.

Here, we are dealing with people who aren’t guilty of anything more than unknowing Heresy. To ascribe more or intentionality, as some have done here, is to go beyond the evidence and what is allowed under the Church’s own Canon Law.

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued & ended]

**

If the Pope believes that authorizing Limited Communion for members of the TAC while the Vatican finalizes the details with our superiors, his Petrine Office gives him the Authority to do that, esp. since the precedents are already in place.**
## That would be a fine example of the “legal positivism” against which there have been so many warnings by this Pope: for having might, is not the same thing as having competence. That is why it would be sinful - perhaps schismatic - to abolish the Byzantine Rite: having the “fullness of power”, is not enough, because abolishing a Rite, is not within the scope of the papal “fullness of power”: any more than extending the Eucharist to a parrot would be. So - how can he authorise “limited Communion” to Christians who might not all become RC ? And if he did so, why may not other aspiring converts be treated likewise ? That is the sort of confusion that would follow such conduct. ##

**

Again, as irenicist has said, the Reception of a Church into the Catholic Church is handled completely differently than that of an individual, or even of a single congregation.

Blessings and Peace, Michael**